Based on Scoring Defense, in the 2013 Super Bowl, the #12 team beat the #2 team. Based on yardage, the #17 team beat the #3. Clearly, points tell a much different story...
Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan
Focusing on one team in one season misses the point. When you look at points versus yards over the long haul, points are far more indicative of the success of a team, for both offense and defense. How is that difficult to grasp?
In that same year, the Seahawks were the #1 Scoring Defense. #2 was the 49ers. #3 was the Bears. Wait. What? But the Bears didn't even make the playoffs. Neither did the #6 or #7 Scoring D. How can that be when the most important thing is defense?
Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan
Where did I say it was the end all be all? Of course you can go through and find exceptions. For instance, this past season the 2nd and 5th scoring offenses missed the playoffs.
Also, the Bears were 10-6 that season. It wasn't like they were a shit football club (they still suck, though).
In 2012, 10 of the top 12 Scoring Offenses made the playoffs. The only 2 that didn't were the Saints and Giants. Those 2 teams had won 2 of the previous 3 Super Bowls. So essentially 100% of the top Scoring offenses in 2012 were relevant.
Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan
The Ravens were 3rd in scoring defense four consecutive years leading up to the year they won the Super Bowl from 2008 through 2011. Using your own logic, does that nullify your first point about the Ravens defense not being so highly ranked but still winning the Super Bowl XVLII?
In 2013, 9 of the top 12 Scoring Offenses and Scoring Defenses were in the playoffs. Doesn't appear that Defense is the more important side.
Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan
The defenses that missed were #7, #8 and #12 scoring defenses. #7 was Arizona who finished 10-6. The offenses were the #2, #5 and #13 (so 10 of 12 scoring offenses actually made it. Of course the Packers had the #8 scoring offense and made the playoffs at 8-7-1).
Then again, here we are talking about two years, which you yourself have criticized play2win doing with his point on this past Super Bowl. If the purpose is to point out that his one point (or any one person's for that matter) can easily be an exception, that is fair and I'd agree.
Also, I'm personally more interested in what the criteria are for winning the Super Bowl since that is the ultimate goal, not just making the playoffs.
I bet the Ravens wish they knew that you didn't think Flacco was a franchise QB before they gave him that huge contract. Bet they'll check with you next time.
Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan
😆 I bet they did too, what with his whopping 73.1 QB Rating (ranked 32nd in the NFL this past year) on the back of 19 TDs to 23 INTs this past season. He has a career rating of 83.7 and has broken 90 once. He clearly deserves to be paid basically the same amount as Rodgers.
Knowledgeable football people would consider Roethlisburger, Manning and Flacco to be franchise QB's. All they've done is win 5 of the last 9 Super Bowls. The fact that you don't isn't surprising.
Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan
See point above for comments on Flacco.
Manning had a 69.4 QB Rating this past season (good for 35th). He has a career 81.2 QB Rating.
Among active quarterbacks with enough attempts to qualify, Flacco is 16th in passer rating and Eli is 21st. They are average. No one would think otherwise if not for the rings (also, in Eli's case, his last name). The argument for quarterbacks being good based on the rings they've won should've died when that argument had to be reconciled with the following score line:
Trent Dilfer: 1
Dan Marino: 0
Roethlisberger is 7th on the active passer rating list. I'm harsh on Big Ben because I get so sick of of media overrating quarterbacks for the success of the team. As I said before, he is good but he is not in that elite tier of quarterbacks. He is in a tier where about a third of the league has a quarterback playing around his level or better.
The trend in the NFL for the last 20 years has been to encourage offense. To deny that is ridiculous. To state that Defense is more important than Offense is ludicrous.
Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan
I haven't denied the rules have been skewed towards the offense. But you are confusing the league forcing higher score lines with the importance of an offense or defense. The rule changes could make defenses obsolete or they could simply change the standard for what quantifies a good defense (and offense).
Today, holding a team to 14 to 15 points a game is completely and utterly dominant. 20 years ago it would have been only pretty good. Likewise, scoring 28 points a game today would be pretty good, whereas 20 years ago it would have typically lead the league.
I would even contend that the shift in rules could eventually heighten the importance of a defense. If something is relatively easy, lots of individuals or groups are going to look good. By skewing the rules so grossly in favor of the offense, you could end up in a situation whereby only a select few defenses can cope with the challenge; and those defenses could really set themselves apart from the rest.
All that said, and apologies to everyone for the long post, here are some of the breakdowns on historical defensive and offensive scoring ranks for the Super Bowl champions:
I pulled the historical data and all time there have been 14 #1 scoring defenses that went on to win a Super Bowl and 10 #1 scoring offenses. The median rank for a defensive scoring rank all time is 3 compared to 4.5 for offensive scoring rank.
Over the past 20 years (since you referenced 20 years) there have been 6 #1 defenses and 4 #1 offenses. The median defensive rank was 3 and the median offensive rank was 7.
Over the past 10 years there have been 2 #1 scoring defenses and 5 top 3 scoring defenses. In that time frame there has been 1 #1 scoring offense and 2 top 3 scoring offenses. The median rank has was 7.5 for defense and 9 for offense.
We've seen more parity of late with some really shitty (by regular season ranking standards) offenses and defenses going on to win Super Bowls. That said, historically the defense has been the higher rank and arguably the more important. That statistical view holds true for the most recent 20 and 10 year time periods. One day that could change but until I see the evidence that it has, I'm going to continue with the view that the defense is the more important side of the ball.
Sources:
pro-football-reference (for scoring ranks and active qb rating leaders)
nfl.com (for individual qb statistics)
Born and bred a cheesehead